politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Five reasons why this CNN politics man has bet on Marco Rub
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Five reasons why this CNN politics man has bet on Marco Rubio for the Republican nomination
I like the case has been made in this clip particularly the debate extract when Rubio is dealing with the language issue. The way he handled it is reminiscent of the conference speech Obama made in 2004 which brought him to prominence for the first time.
Comments
-
He's not outstanding, but he's probably the only one without a huge great weakness so is favourite by default.
Not a charisma vacuum like Jeb Bush. Not as polarising or as hated by the party establishment as Trump. Not as batshit insane as Ted Cruz.0 -
I haven't been following this closely enough to assess it but posting for balance:
For all the buzz surrounding his campaign, the Florida senator isn't raising enough money and hasn't yet built much of a field organization.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/rubio-wake-up-call-2148900 -
George Eaton @georgeeaton 43m43 minutes ago
Most Tories expect Douglas Carswell to defect back to them before the election, minister tells me.0 -
The worrying thing about this contest is that in 18 months' time one of the candidates in these debates will be President!Danny565 said:He's not outstanding, but he's probably the only one without a huge great weakness so is favourite by default.
Not a charisma vacuum like Jeb Bush. Not as polarising or as hated by the party establishment as Trump. Not as batshit insane as Ted Cruz.0 -
I'm not a fan of these political dynasties but at this point we just have to hope Malia enters the race.Sandpit said:
The worrying thing about this contest is that in 18 months' time one of the candidates in these debates will be President!Danny565 said:He's not outstanding, but he's probably the only one without a huge great weakness so is favourite by default.
Not a charisma vacuum like Jeb Bush. Not as polarising or as hated by the party establishment as Trump. Not as batshit insane as Ted Cruz.0 -
If she is over 40 that represents an entirely new twist on the Birther issue!edmundintokyo said:
I'm not a fan of these political dynasties but at this point we just have to hope Malia enters the race.Sandpit said:
The worrying thing about this contest is that in 18 months' time one of the candidates in these debates will be President!Danny565 said:He's not outstanding, but he's probably the only one without a huge great weakness so is favourite by default.
Not a charisma vacuum like Jeb Bush. Not as polarising or as hated by the party establishment as Trump. Not as batshit insane as Ted Cruz.0 -
Towards the end of the 19th century, the US had several second rate presidents. It seems to have done it no harm at all in the long run. We may be entering a similar run for different reasons. Again, it may do the US no harm in the long run.0
-
He's a decent MP and deserves better than UKIP. Surely it will depend on the referendum though.Danny565 said:George Eaton @georgeeaton 43m43 minutes ago
Most Tories expect Douglas Carswell to defect back to them before the election, minister tells me.0 -
Mr. Antifrank, the Eastern Empire had lots of dodgy early emperors. That didn't stop it (over the centuries) increasing in power.
But it also had some heroic ones towards the end. And that didn't stem the Turkish tide.
America was on a long-term rise back then. It's not going to collapse (unlike the EU, sooner or later...), but in relative terms it's in decline.
Edited extra bit: and for those of you sick of my modernist 10th century blogs recently, I'm working on something about the 4th century BC.0 -
Yes, there is a touch of O about him.
Rubio is not a natural born citizen either...
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [my bold]
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
AIUI, Rubio's parents did not become citizens until 1975, four years after his birth...
0 -
I would be surprised unless he's speculating on a post-Cameron era.Danny565 said:George Eaton @georgeeaton 43m43 minutes ago
Most Tories expect Douglas Carswell to defect back to them before the election, minister tells me.0 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theoriesRodCrosby said:Yes, there is a touch of O about him.
Rubio is not a natural born citizen either...
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [my bold]
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
AIUI, Rubio's parents did not become citizens until 1975, four years after his birth...0 -
Sunil, I think it is well established that this is a Rod hobby horse and that his view is way off what is accepted in the US as the de facto reading. No-one challenged McCain, and the Birthers were ridiculed for challenging Obama. No-one has seriously challenged either Cruz or Rubio. So by practice alone, regardless of legal precedent, the case is settled against Rod.Sunil_Prasannan said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theoriesRodCrosby said:Yes, there is a touch of O about him.
Rubio is not a natural born citizen either...
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [my bold]
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
AIUI, Rubio's parents did not become citizens until 1975, four years after his birth...0 -
On the other hand, it had some poor ones at critical moments - Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson - which did do either it or the wider world a lot of harm.antifrank said:Towards the end of the 19th century, the US had several second rate presidents. It seems to have done it no harm at all in the long run. We may be entering a similar run for different reasons. Again, it may do the US no harm in the long run.
0 -
We'd all settle for Rubio.
My money's still on Fiorina because she's the best candidate in my view, but not-Trump, not-Bush, not-Clinton, and not-mad is the theme.
0 -
Oh, and on topic, I agree with Mike. Rubio is very well placed right now.0
-
FPT @ David Herdson re morality and gods
As I said, they don't exist beyond the intangible projections of men and women.
Now if your argument is that you cannot win an argument over beliefs using solely reason and rationality, I'd agree one hundred percent. But you don't need to introduce gods into the equation in order to make that argument.0 -
MTimT, yes, I remember posting that URL only a few months ago!MTimT said:
Sunil, I think it is well established that this is a Rod hobby horse and that his view is way off what is accepted in the US as the de facto reading. No-one challenged McCain, and the Birthers were ridiculed for challenging Obama. No-one has seriously challenged either Cruz or Rubio. So by practice alone, regardless of legal precedent, the case is settled against Rod.Sunil_Prasannan said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theoriesRodCrosby said:Yes, there is a touch of O about him.
Rubio is not a natural born citizen either...
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [my bold]
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
AIUI, Rubio's parents did not become citizens until 1975, four years after his birth...0 -
It sure is some conspiracy for the Framers and the Supreme Court to invent a law making Obama ineligible, some 100-200 years prior to his birth...Sunil_Prasannan said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theoriesRodCrosby said:Yes, there is a touch of O about him.
Rubio is not a natural born citizen either...
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [my bold]
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
AIUI, Rubio's parents did not become citizens until 1975, four years after his birth...
0 -
A natural born citizen according to Common Law in 1776 was any child born in the land including children of aliens (except for children of diplomats etc) as well as children born overseas of parents who were citizens themselves. That is still the law today. Rubio was born in the US and so is a natural born citizen, no ifs, no buts.RodCrosby said:Yes, there is a touch of O about him.
Rubio is not a natural born citizen either...
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [my bold]
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
AIUI, Rubio's parents did not become citizens until 1975, four years after his birth...0 -
Mike, I agree Rubio, as the Establishment man with the momentum currently, has to be the frontrunner for the professional politicians in the GOP race. The challengers to that position, other than Bush who is going in the wrong direction, are Christie and Kasich, who are currently way out of touch but neither of whom would I write off at this stage.
The only serious challenger to the Establishment man, whoever that ends up being, is Cruz, but I think he ultimately will prove to be the Pat Robinson candidate.0 -
I backed Rubio at 50/1.
Unfortunately, that was five years ago and for the previous election.0 -
Morris_Dancer said:I backed Rubio at 50/1.
Unfortunately, that was five years ago and for the previous election.0 -
Marc O'Rubio - pitching for the Irish vote.0
-
Check your bet - if it was "to be next POTUS" you could still be a winner!Morris_Dancer said:I backed Rubio at 50/1.
Unfortunately, that was five years ago and for the previous election.0 -
Reminds me of O'Bama.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xkw8ip43VkSandyRentool said:Marc O'Rubio - pitching for the Irish vote.
0 -
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States, under clause 5:RodCrosby said:
It sure is some conspiracy for the Framers and the Supreme Court to invent a law making Obama ineligible, some 100-200 years prior to his birth...Sunil_Prasannan said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theoriesRodCrosby said:Yes, there is a touch of O about him.
Rubio is not a natural born citizen either...
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [my bold]
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
AIUI, Rubio's parents did not become citizens until 1975, four years after his birth...
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The Twelfth Amendment states, "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase natural-born citizen. It does provide, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Under Article One of the United States Constitution, representatives and senators are only required to be U.S. citizens.[5][6]
Eight of the first nine presidents – Martin Van Buren being the exception – as well as early potential presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution but were eligible for the office by virtue of having been citizens at the time that the Constitution was adopted.[7]
0 -
FPT
God(s) don't exist except as Tim said in the minds of the people who believe in them. That you say they exist in peoples minds does not alter that.david_herdson said:
They do exist. At the minimum they exist in people's mind and many societies' collective consciousnesses.MTimT said:
No they don't. They don't exist. (beyond the intangible projections of men and women).david_herdson said:It's inappropriate to apply the morals of humans to deities; they exist on a different plane.
But either way it implies that to try to rationalise with and persuade god(s) on the same basis as one would with humans is both arrogant and absurd.
But how can one rationalise and persuade fictional characters? Surely you can only attempt to persuade believers, who actually exist, rather than try and persuade figments of the imagination that don't. Trying to persuade a god is like trying to persuade a poltergeist or ghost for a sceptic. Either way I don't see how arrogance enters into it. Absurdity is obviously in the equation since we're talking about myths.0 -
Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.
The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.0 -
One key world on why Rubio will not get the nomination:
Immigration
He loves it, the republican voters hate it so much they are willing to vote for Trump.0 -
Anyone wired into what's going on in Canada?0
-
Switzerland’s anti-immigrant People’s Party [SVP] comes top in parly elections, winning nearly third of vote - its highest score http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4590190.ece0
-
I think there is an election?Casino_Royale said:Anyone wired into what's going on in Canada?
...oh, that's my coat!
0 -
Miss Plato, one hopes that wrote Merkel a thank you letter.
Edited extra bit: they*0 -
Obama BeachPlato_Says said:Reminds me of O'Bama.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Xkw8ip43VkSandyRentool said:Marc O'Rubio - pitching for the Irish vote.
0 -
''Switzerland’s anti-immigrant People’s Party [SVP] comes top in parly elections, winning nearly third of vote - its highest score''.
http://www.politico.eu/article/poll-marion-le-pen-headed-for-victory-france-national-front-elections/
Holland. Switzerland. And France.
0 -
Boris Johnson says he'd like some attention whilst he reminds people he exists and what sort of stance he might take if he becomes Prime Minister:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34573602
And some blathering about tax credits.0 -
Are you consulting Jack W? Might be wise.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Antifrank, the Eastern Empire had lots of dodgy early emperors. That didn't stop it (over the centuries) increasing in power.
But it also had some heroic ones towards the end. And that didn't stem the Turkish tide.
America was on a long-term rise back then. It's not going to collapse (unlike the EU, sooner or later...), but in relative terms it's in decline.
Edited extra bit: and for those of you sick of my modernist 10th century blogs recently, I'm working on something about the 4th century BC.0 -
King Cole, it's rather far afield from Scotland (or Caledonia, indeed), so I'm not sure Mr. W could be of help (besides, as there are a number of ladies involved I wouldn't want past assignations to get him in trouble with his lady wife).0
-
Brilliant men and women tend to have flaws and unhelpful back histories of one kind or another. It makes running for President very difficult. Trump can manage it only because at root he is an imbecile.antifrank said:Towards the end of the 19th century, the US had several second rate presidents. It seems to have done it no harm at all in the long run. We may be entering a similar run for different reasons. Again, it may do the US no harm in the long run.
0 -
I wonder what the Germans will make of Merkel long term? She really is an astonishing force. I simply cannot reconcile her embracing all approach with what I know of the German people. I've no idea whether she's right or wrong, but she is changing everything about Germany.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Plato, one hopes that wrote Merkel a thank you letter.
Edited extra bit: they*
Maggie was a similar force in the UK, although I think not as great. We're still to some extent defining our politics relative to her now. As Merkel seems a greater force, and as there's a bigger vacuum for admirable politicians in the recent German history she seems to be destined for quite a historical mark.
The US, and France need to undergo a similar 'right of passage'.0 -
What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???0
-
Mr. Omnium, Commodus was a great historical force too, yet practically nobody [who isn't into history] has even heard of Antoninus Pius.
Merkel's legacy will depend on how the migration crisis plays out. My fear is it'll go terribly, attract millions from the Middle East and Africa, and also badly affect other European countries (most obviously those south of Germany) and Germany's relationship with those countries.
Rome tried to replenish its strength by using barbarian muscle. Within a century or so of Valentinian's death Rome fell and an Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy emerged. There are stronger national sentiments and institutions now, but a massive impact will still be felt, I suspect.0 -
Bet she's thrilled at the new series of Homeland...Omnium said:
I wonder what the Germans will make of Merkel long term? She really is an astonishing force. I simply cannot reconcile her embracing all approach with what I know of the German people. I've no idea whether she's right or wrong, but she is changing everything about Germany.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Plato, one hopes that wrote Merkel a thank you letter.
Edited extra bit: they*
Maggie was a similar force in the UK, although I think not as great. We're still to some extent defining our politics relative to her now. As Merkel seems a greater force, and as there's a bigger vacuum for admirable politicians in the recent German history she seems to be destined for quite a historical mark.
The US, and France need to undergo a similar 'right of passage'.0 -
I think that Opinium poll rating for them of 5% today is the lowest ever.isam said:What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???
0 -
Strange then the Supreme Court has on numerous occasion held the contrary opinion, and never held the one you claim...Philip_Thompson said:
A natural born citizen according to Common Law in 1776 was any child born in the land including children of aliens (except for children of diplomats etc) as well as children born overseas of parents who were citizens themselves. That is still the law today. Rubio was born in the US and so is a natural born citizen, no ifs, no buts.
"...children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights" (The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814))
If the plaintiff was born on U.S. soil, of British parents, "his infancy incapacitated him from making an election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father ..." (Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830))
"If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country." (Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830))
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)" described as 'unexceptionable' (beyond criticism or objection) in Scott v Sandford (1857) 60 U.S. 393
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' ... The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." Slaughter-House Cases, (1873) 83 U.S. 36, 38
To this date, the USSC has never referred to anyone as an nbc, except those born in a country of parents who were citizens...0 -
Mr Dancer, a view of Wikipedia's front page has alerted me to events exactly 2217 years ago today.0
-
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/david-camerons-renegotiation-appears-to-be-underwhelming-his-own-mps/
Tax credit cuts???? Nah....this is the real time bomb under the tories. And its ticking0 -
-
Dr. Prasannan, huzzah!
The Second Punic War is a fascinating conflict, Dr. Prasannan, from the family rivalries, the internal political battles, the intriguing Numidian warfare, Hannibal's brilliant marches, the skills of Marcellus, Nero, Scipio and Quintus Fabius Maximus, all the way to the ultimate result.
It's got the biggest ambush in military history, the most audacious march in military history, and the most impressive battlefield victory in military history.
Miss Plato, it's very topical, the timing's as good as when the Sepp Blatter hagiography of a film was released to flop gloriously.0 -
Form a new party with the likes of Liz Kendall and the remaining Blairitesisam said:0 -
Mr. Isam, if they'd gone for Lamb, as I'd advocated, they'd be in a better place to be a boring, steady, soft-left place that Labour supporters who aren't also communists could safely retreat whilst Corbyn ruins the reds with madness.
Farron should still benefit, but he may come across as a hectoring lecturing self-righteous zealot.0 -
Depending on team news I am going to dutch Shelvey and Adam to be booked tonightisam said:What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???
0 -
Epic fail.Philip_Thompson said:Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.
The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)0 -
Off Beachy Head perhaps? Sandals off first though0
-
There is no longer a reason for voting Lib Dem. They're too small to make them a viable check on either main party, their liberalism is tainted in the minds of too many with their spell in government with the Conservatives to make an appeal to the principled left unlikely to succeed and there are more credible receptacles of protest votes. And all their incumbents are excumbents now.isam said:
Unless they can think of a reason for their own existence that convinces anyone else, they're royally buggered.0 -
A distinct lack of not paying attention to Cameron's previous modus operandi in evidence there..taffys said:http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/david-camerons-renegotiation-appears-to-be-underwhelming-his-own-mps/
Tax credit cuts???? Nah....this is the real time bomb under the tories. And its ticking
1) Grand plan
2) Incite commentators into with "lazy", "lacklustre" tirades.
3) Win
0 -
I can only think David Cameron is deliberately softballing our expectations here, to use an American term. The four mentioned so far are either very weak or deliberately vague.:taffys said:http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/david-camerons-renegotiation-appears-to-be-underwhelming-his-own-mps/
Tax credit cuts???? Nah....this is the real time bomb under the tories. And its ticking
- An opt-out from ever closer union. No practical effect at all.
- A more competitive EU. This sounds like the same gradualist fiddling that we've always had, unless there is something major here, like liberalisation of agriculture.
- Single market protections. This could mean anything. I suppose this one could be code for the red card system or a double QMV system. That would be big if we get it done properly.
- An end to abuses of free movement. Again, this is so vague it could mean anything. Previously it has been leaked as a four year ban on benefits, so he probably means that. But the abuse we really need to end is liberal giving out of passports, which is what could really put us in trouble from the current migrant crisis.
Cameron must surely have something big up his sleeve, because only the total uninformed or the incredibly biased could describe that as a successful negotiation.0 -
''Form a new party with the likes of Liz Kendall and the remaining Blairites.''
I read today that Tim Farron called on the PM to call on the Hungarian PM to re-open borders.
Empty gesture politics against the tide of public opinion.
That is why the lib dems are on 5%.0 -
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I fear your optimism is displaced.
Cameron's negotiation depends on 27 other leaders, including a socialist Frenchman and a German Chancellor who seems determined to make the whole EU obey her will.
He won't get anything substantial, but will present it as a great deal.
My concern is that he'll still win the referendum, which will be taking by the foreigners and EU-philes here to mean we want increasing integration.0 -
I think you are overestimating his desire to back "Remain"Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Flashman (deceased), I fear your optimism is displaced.
Cameron's negotiation depends on 27 other leaders, including a socialist Frenchman and a German Chancellor who seems determined to make the whole EU obey her will.
He won't get anything substantial, but will present it as a great deal.
My concern is that he'll still win the referendum, which will be taking by the foreigners and EU-philes here to mean we want increasing integration.
0 -
Well you can add me to your 'nobodies' - I don't recall "Antoninus Pius", However if he features in the great works then it's just my memory failing.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Omnium, Commodus was a great historical force too, yet practically nobody [who isn't into history] has even heard of Antoninus Pius.
Merkel's legacy will depend on how the migration crisis plays out. My fear is it'll go terribly, attract millions from the Middle East and Africa, and also badly affect other European countries (most obviously those south of Germany) and Germany's relationship with those countries.
Rome tried to replenish its strength by using barbarian muscle. Within a century or so of Valentinian's death Rome fell and an Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy emerged. There are stronger national sentiments and institutions now, but a massive impact will still be felt, I suspect.
The modern world and Rome are quite different things. I don't think though that they're so far different that your historical lessons are without worth. Rather the opposite.
"It will go terribly in Germany" - you didn't quite say that, but that's the theme. She has unleashed a storm. I'm both in admiration and fear.
0 -
''My concern is that he'll still win the referendum, which will be taking by the foreigners and EU-philes here to mean we want increasing integration.''
My concern is Mr Morris is that this issue will shatter the tory party, as it has in the past.0 -
Ooh yes I'll have a looksie at that in a minnigel4england said:
Depending on team news I am going to dutch Shelvey and Adam to be booked tonightisam said:What's the lowest the lib dems have ever polled???
0 -
2nd Amendment:RodCrosby said:
Epic fail.Philip_Thompson said:Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.
The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
0 -
''I think you are overestimating his desire to back "Remain"
Oh come on. Europe could give us nothing and Cameron would still back remain. He will never ever back out. Ever.
And if the polls across Europe are correct, we could be looking at a continent on fire next year. The European establishment's idea of 'listening' to the rise of sceptical parties is to let in two million migrants.0 -
Cameron has one vote in the EU Referendum..the others all belong to us..0
-
Maybe that could attract left leaners that are turned off by Corbyn and McDonnell? The sensible left?antifrank said:
There is no longer a reason for voting Lib Dem. They're too small to make them a viable check on either main party, their liberalism is tainted in the minds of too many with their spell in government with the Conservatives to make an appeal to the principled left unlikely to succeed and there are more credible receptacles of protest votes. And all their incumbents are excumbents now.isam said:
Unless they can think of a reason for their own existence that convinces anyone else, they're royally buggered.
Maybe if they could get a couple of Labour defectors that'd help0 -
I thought Reagan was the US' ...Omnium said:
I wonder what the Germans will make of Merkel long term? She really is an astonishing force. I simply cannot reconcile her embracing all approach with what I know of the German people. I've no idea whether she's right or wrong, but she is changing everything about Germany.Morris_Dancer said:Miss Plato, one hopes that wrote Merkel a thank you letter.
Edited extra bit: they*
Maggie was a similar force in the UK, although I think not as great. We're still to some extent defining our politics relative to her now. As Merkel seems a greater force, and as there's a bigger vacuum for admirable politicians in the recent German history she seems to be destined for quite a historical mark.
The US, and France need to undergo a similar 'right of passage'.0 -
Oh sorry I just posted something similar without reading your reply! And same to @nigel4englandMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Isam, if they'd gone for Lamb, as I'd advocated, they'd be in a better place to be a boring, steady, soft-left place that Labour supporters who aren't also communists could safely retreat whilst Corbyn ruins the reds with madness.
Farron should still benefit, but he may come across as a hectoring lecturing self-righteous zealot.
0 -
Yes, the grandfather clause, which ceased to apply in the early 19th C when the last of the Revolutionaries ("the Founders") died out. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country that did not yet exist at the time of their birth (as subjects of King George)...Sunil_Prasannan said:
2nd Amendment:RodCrosby said:
Epic fail.Philip_Thompson said:Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.
The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."0 -
You seem to ignore the "or a Citizen of the United States" bit...RodCrosby said:
Yes, the grandfather clause, which ceased to apply in the early 19th C when the last of the Revolutionaries ("the Founders") died out. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country that did not yet exist at the time of their birth (as subjects of King George)...Sunil_Prasannan said:
2nd Amendment:RodCrosby said:
Epic fail.Philip_Thompson said:Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.
The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."0 -
United States v Wong Kim Ark (1897) established it in the nineteenth century and has been reaffirmed repeatedly.RodCrosby said:
Epic fail.Philip_Thompson said:Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.
The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)0 -
If Cameron starts a civil war in the Conservative Party by a dirty tricks campaign against eurosceptics or by being deceitful about what he has repatriated he will never be forgiven by the base.taffys said:''My concern is that he'll still win the referendum, which will be taking by the foreigners and EU-philes here to mean we want increasing integration.''
My concern is Mr Morris is that this issue will shatter the tory party, as it has in the past.0 -
'admiration and fear'. Awe seems to be the word with sufficient ambiguity.Omnium said:
Well you can add me to your 'nobodies' - I don't recall "Antoninus Pius", However if he features in the great works then it's just my memory failing.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Omnium, Commodus was a great historical force too, yet practically nobody [who isn't into history] has even heard of Antoninus Pius.
Merkel's legacy will depend on how the migration crisis plays out. My fear is it'll go terribly, attract millions from the Middle East and Africa, and also badly affect other European countries (most obviously those south of Germany) and Germany's relationship with those countries.
Rome tried to replenish its strength by using barbarian muscle. Within a century or so of Valentinian's death Rome fell and an Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy emerged. There are stronger national sentiments and institutions now, but a massive impact will still be felt, I suspect.
The modern world and Rome are quite different things. I don't think though that they're so far different that your historical lessons are without worth. Rather the opposite.
"It will go terribly in Germany" - you didn't quite say that, but that's the theme. She has unleashed a storm. I'm both in admiration and fear.0 -
I don't see anything that the Lib Dems could offer that would induce Labour MPs to defect to them. Disgruntled Labour MPs might as well sit as independents.isam said:
Maybe that could attract left leaners that are turned off by Corbyn and McDonnell? The sensible left?antifrank said:
There is no longer a reason for voting Lib Dem. They're too small to make them a viable check on either main party, their liberalism is tainted in the minds of too many with their spell in government with the Conservatives to make an appeal to the principled left unlikely to succeed and there are more credible receptacles of protest votes. And all their incumbents are excumbents now.isam said:
Unless they can think of a reason for their own existence that convinces anyone else, they're royally buggered.
Maybe if they could get a couple of Labour defectors that'd help0 -
FTPT
Bank of England Inflation calculator: £23306.51 in 2009 is equivalent to £27,923.57 (in 2014 Money)Philip_Thompson said:
What inflation?Alistair said:
Depends if that's nominal or inflation adjusted.RobD said:
So, effectively neutral, as the article states the tax credit change causes a decrease of £2k?Mortimer said:
I knew my Friday night spreadsheeting would come in handy.RobD said:
It would be interesting to see a calculator comparing 2009/10 with 2015/16 or 16/17, so the full range of the changes to the income tax thresholds can be taken into account.LucyJones said:
I posted this the other day:Sandpit said:On the substantive issue of tax credits, does anyone have a genuine worked through example of someone who will be seriously worse off by the proposed changes in the round? It will need to include minimum wage rise, personal allowance increase and childcare subsidy increases over the past five years.
My hunch is that those badly affected are working exactly 16 hours a week, an artificial limit which is being removed by Universal Credit.
The local Costa is advertising for staff at £7.50 per hour. A married couple, both working full time in said café, with 2 kids, will be £2068 per year worse off from next year according to the calculator in The Telegraph. If they have 3 kids, they will be £2500 worse off. A single parent, working full-time for £7.50/hour will be £1600/year worse off.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11726113/Budget-calculator-work-out-how-your-finances-have-changed.html
Not everyone on low wage is on minimum wage. The rise in the living wage will not necessarily help all low wage workers in the short run.
"Thirteen million UK families will lose £260 a year on average because of the Budget's tax and benefits changes, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
Tax credit changes could hit three million families, which are likely to lose an average of £1,000, it said.
Even taking into account higher wages, people receiving tax credits would be "significantly worse off", said Paul Johnson, director of the IFS."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864
Not integrated credits into it yet, but, for comparison, (total) take-home pay of 2 people each working 40 hours at £7.50, assuming 47 working weeks, was/is as follows:
2009/10: 23306.51
2015/16: 25351.36
I.e., before tax credits are taken into account, £2000 better off.
This is Money Calculator puts it at £27,775.65
This is because they use RPI rather than CPI and so tracks the cost of housing as well.0 -
Maybe they could "Party" like it's 1981isam said:
Maybe that could attract left leaners that are turned off by Corbyn and McDonnell? The sensible left?antifrank said:
There is no longer a reason for voting Lib Dem. They're too small to make them a viable check on either main party, their liberalism is tainted in the minds of too many with their spell in government with the Conservatives to make an appeal to the principled left unlikely to succeed and there are more credible receptacles of protest votes. And all their incumbents are excumbents now.isam said:
Unless they can think of a reason for their own existence that convinces anyone else, they're royally buggered.
Maybe if they could get a couple of Labour defectors that'd help 0 -
JEO - can you see any evidence or point to past history which correlates to that turn of events ?JEO said:
If Cameron starts a civil war in the Conservative Party by a dirty tricks campaign against eurosceptics or by being deceitful about what he has repatriated he will never be forgiven by the base.taffys said:''My concern is that he'll still win the referendum, which will be taking by the foreigners and EU-philes here to mean we want increasing integration.''
My concern is Mr Morris is that this issue will shatter the tory party, as it has in the past.0 -
One debate about gods (not) existing, and one about whether Obama is an illegal president. This is a very poor thread.0
-
"...at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." i.e. in 1789! The Citizens of the United States at that time were the people who came together to found the new nation. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country they had just created, but their children could, as offspring of citizens.Sunil_Prasannan said:
You seem to ignore the "or a Citizen of the United States" bit...RodCrosby said:
Yes, the grandfather clause, which ceased to apply in the early 19th C when the last of the Revolutionaries ("the Founders") died out. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country that did not yet exist at the time of their birth (as subjects of King George)...Sunil_Prasannan said:
2nd Amendment:RodCrosby said:
Epic fail.Philip_Thompson said:Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.
The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."0 -
@MD
Re: Antoninus Pius
It's all very well and good bringing up historical figures, but when they're as dull as he seems to have been then one has to ask why!?
I'm happy though that should you outlive me you may mention my doings with completely undeserved respect. "Procedum Omnium".
So.. Mr Pius - give me his merits!
0 -
It is irrelevant since the Supreme Court ruled in the nineteenth century that citizenship is granted at birth by being born in the USA. Which has been reaffirmed in subsequent rulings.RodCrosby said:
"...at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." i.e. in 1789! The Citizens of the United States at that time were the people who came together to found the new nation. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country they had just created, but their children could, as offspring of citizens.Sunil_Prasannan said:
You seem to ignore the "or a Citizen of the United States" bit...RodCrosby said:
Yes, the grandfather clause, which ceased to apply in the early 19th C when the last of the Revolutionaries ("the Founders") died out. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country that did not yet exist at the time of their birth (as subjects of King George)...Sunil_Prasannan said:
2nd Amendment:RodCrosby said:
Epic fail.Philip_Thompson said:Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.
The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
0 -
JEO - can you see any evidence or point to past history which correlates to that turn of events ?
A gallant defence of Cam Mr TGOHF, but the problem is we haven't had a referendum since 1975. We are in uncharted territory. The supposed weakness of labour is emboldening Cameron's back bench enemies. I have big concerns on this one.0 -
Wong was deemed a "citizen" (not a nbc) under the 14th Amendment.Philip_Thompson said:
United States v Wong Kim Ark (1897) established it in the nineteenth century and has been reaffirmed repeatedly.RodCrosby said:
Epic fail.Philip_Thompson said:Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.
The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and thus became part of the Constitution. Seven years later the USSC said...
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [my bold] Minor v Happersett (1875)
And we already know the 14th doesn't define an nbc, in any case.
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that..."
Minor v Happersett (1875)
0 -
Denmark and Sweden as well. Possibly Finland.taffys said:''Switzerland’s anti-immigrant People’s Party [SVP] comes top in parly elections, winning nearly third of vote - its highest score''.
http://www.politico.eu/article/poll-marion-le-pen-headed-for-victory-france-national-front-elections/
Holland. Switzerland. And France.0 -
Granted, yes!RodCrosby said:
"...at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." i.e. in 1789! The Citizens of the United States at that time were the people who came together to found the new nation. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country they had just created, but their children could, as offspring of citizens.Sunil_Prasannan said:
You seem to ignore the "or a Citizen of the United States" bit...RodCrosby said:
Yes, the grandfather clause, which ceased to apply in the early 19th C when the last of the Revolutionaries ("the Founders") died out. They obviously could not be nbcs of a country that did not yet exist at the time of their birth (as subjects of King George)...Sunil_Prasannan said:
2nd Amendment:RodCrosby said:
)Philip_Thompson said:Indeed Sunil the Fourteenth couldn't be clearer. Anyone born in the USA except for the children of diplomats etc (who aren't subject to jurisdiction due to Diplomatic Immunity) is a natural born citizen.
The status of parents is irrelevant, unless the individual is born overseas.
"
But as you know
The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholarship, together with relevant case law, is that "natural born" comprises all people born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including, generally, those born in the United States, those born to U.S. citizen parents in foreign countries, and those born in other situations meeting the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth."[2]
The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen. Many eligibility lawsuits from the 2008 and 2012 election cycles were dismissed in lower courts due to the challengers' difficulty in showing that they had standing to raise legal objections. Additionally, some experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question that can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government.[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause
0 -
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I hope you're right, but believe you're wrong.
Mr. Omnium, Antoninus Pius basically kept everything running smoothly during Rome's peak. Like Trajan, there's not much written about him, so, despite his prolonged reign and excellence, it's fair enough to not know much.
I concur that a maelstrom will engulf Merkel. She hasn't so much struck an iceberg as turned the ship and pointed it directly at the North Pole.
Mr. Taffys, a credible possibility. The new leader offers them opportunity to unite, or deepen the division.
Mr. Isam, no need to apologise
Unless you're secretly Craig Joubert, of course.
Mr. Omnium (2), considering what came after, a very peaceful reign is not something to scoff at. What would Syria give for that today?0 -
1897 case law trumps that of 1875 Rod. Though the 14th Amendment as cited in 1897 merely extended to slaves the existing case law that dates back to the then English Common Law that dates back to 1608 that anyone even of alien parents born in England is an English subject. For America it adopted that exact same legal principle for everyone except slaves but calling them citizens rather than subjects.0
-
Rubio has a chance if the GOP put electability first but like Obama he will have to win the Iowa caucus. At the moment though he may be too pro immigration for the GOP with the base in the mood for a populist after picking two losing establishment moderates0
-
Pay attention
norman smith @BBCNormanS 5m5 minutes ago
Downing Street rule out any further review or consultation on tax credits
0 -
This is why we should not trust Turkey:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3278391/British-woman-50-hanged-toilets-Istanbul-airport-missing-connecting-flight-Iraq.html0 -
Mr. JEO, Turkey under Erdogan is going in a disturbing direction.0
-
Why? You think they offed her in the lav?JEO said:This is why we should not trust Turkey:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3278391/British-woman-50-hanged-toilets-Istanbul-airport-missing-connecting-flight-Iraq.html0 -
https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/656125770016903168Morris_Dancer said:Mr. JEO, Turkey under Erdogan is going in a disturbing direction.
0 -
I prefer 1969 when TSE was a TOTP cameraman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=549B76uehxoSunil_Prasannan said:
Maybe they could "Party" like it's 1981isam said:
Maybe that could attract left leaners that are turned off by Corbyn and McDonnell? The sensible left?antifrank said:
There is no longer a reason for voting Lib Dem. They're too small to make them a viable check on either main party, their liberalism is tainted in the minds of too many with their spell in government with the Conservatives to make an appeal to the principled left unlikely to succeed and there are more credible receptacles of protest votes. And all their incumbents are excumbents now.isam said:
Unless they can think of a reason for their own existence that convinces anyone else, they're royally buggered.
Maybe if they could get a couple of Labour defectors that'd help0 -
That would swtch my vote to Leave.isam said:
https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/656125770016903168Morris_Dancer said:Mr. JEO, Turkey under Erdogan is going in a disturbing direction.
0 -
Why the Conservative Party still sticks to this baffles me.isam said:
https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/656125770016903168Morris_Dancer said:Mr. JEO, Turkey under Erdogan is going in a disturbing direction.
0 -
Turkey under Erdogan would never join the EU. We should support Turkish accession for the same reasons we supported Polish accession. But only if Turkey is ready to join which it is not now.0
-
They could give them a shadow portfolio for a sensible centre-left voice in opposing the Government, and also showing up the lunacy of Corbyn.antifrank said:
I don't see anything that the Lib Dems could offer that would induce Labour MPs to defect to them. Disgruntled Labour MPs might as well sit as independents.isam said:
Maybe that could attract left leaners that are turned off by Corbyn and McDonnell? The sensible left?antifrank said:
There is no longer a reason for voting Lib Dem. They're too small to make them a viable check on either main party, their liberalism is tainted in the minds of too many with their spell in government with the Conservatives to make an appeal to the principled left unlikely to succeed and there are more credible receptacles of protest votes. And all their incumbents are excumbents now.isam said:
Unless they can think of a reason for their own existence that convinces anyone else, they're royally buggered.
Maybe if they could get a couple of Labour defectors that'd help
Although, I grant you, it's not a big offer.0
